Parliament (Participation of Members of the House of Commons) Bill [HL]

My Lords, it has been an intensely interesting debate on an extremely important issue. Three particular points emerge. First was the profoundly excellent speech of my noble friend Lady Adams of Craigielea, who spoke with authority and insight and knew much more about the topic than many others. Secondly, there was absolutely no support for the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, other than on the Conservative Benches. Thirdly, it was tempting to dismiss the Bill to start with; the enthusiasm of the   noble Lord, Lord Baker, was attractive and the enthusiasm that brought the poll tax and the Dangerous Dogs Act now turned to a constitutional issue. Unfortunately, it is not possible to treat it in that way because it was not only put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Conservatives in this House. He says that there should be two-tier MPs. He says that, whether by convention or legislation, the Scots, the Northern Irish and the Welsh should have limited rights to vote in the House of Commons. So we now take it that that is the Conservatives’ position. That is a fundamental change from the position previously adopted by the Conservatives. It is a serious matter. I quote from the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who I am happy to say was in the Chamber earlier but, sadly, is no longer in her place. In her memoirs, The Downing Street Years, on page 624, she said:"““The Tory party is not of course an English party but a Unionist one””." It was quite hard to believe that she was talking about the same Conservative Party as described by the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, given that he said with very great enthusiasm, ““English laws for the English””. That did not sound to me like a unionist party, but an English nationalist party. In accordance with the conventions of this House, the Government will not seek to block this Bill being given a Second Reading should the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, wish it to have one. I very much hope that if the noble Lord is remotely a respecter of institutions he will not push this Bill to a Second Reading. It is not appropriate for an issue such as this to be dealt with in this way. The Government have no intention of bringing a Bill forward. Quite separately from the inappropriateness of moving the Bill, if it were to be passed it would undermine the union of which the noble Lord claims to be such a supporter. It is contrary to the most basic principles of our constitution and is wholly unworkable. I regard this as a matter of great seriousness. As I said, it was tempting to try to dismiss this as part of the noble Lord’s attractive enthusiasm, but it is wholly of a piece with the party opposite’s view of the constitution. Between 1979 and 1997, they behaved in a way which damaged the constitution and resisted change when it was necessary to maintain the union—see their dogged opposition to devolution—and now in this Bill they propose an intensely damaging measure which betrays their total lack of understanding of our constitution. The period between 1979 and 1997 was when the union between England and Scotland was put under greatest strain in recent years. During that period, nationalist parties reached a high water-mark and, in 1997, the Tories ended up without a seat in Scotland or Wales. Between 1979 and 1997, the Tories, using almost exclusively English votes, pushed forward legislation which was anathema to the people of Scotland. Occasionally a handful of MPs supported it, but every one of them lost his seat. If every Scottish, Northern Irish or Welsh MP voted together on an issue, they could not get their way in the UK Parliament. Over 80   per cent of Members of Parliament represent English seats. No measures are required to protect England from the votes of the other countries. In Scotland, there was a firm and settled view that a wide range of domestic issues should be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. We in this party supported that view. We did so because of our desire to preserve and strengthen the union. The proposals for devolution were set out in our 1997 manifesto. Referendums in Scotland and Wales supported devolution. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have been elected and the tide of nationalism in both countries has receded. The Tories caused the damage that led to that Parliament and that Assembly being set up. They opposed the solution. They now propose something intensely damaging. I could not tell from the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Strathclyde, whether they now support devolution. According to a pamphlet issued in the name of Mr David Cameron, he does. I believe that the importance of the union for all parts of the country is an essential tenet of our view of the constitution. At the heart of the union is our national Parliament. It was so before devolution, and it remains so today.